FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I use such material in an effort to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is used without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

and just for fun 2 more:Federal Crop Insurance -v- A.A. Merrill (1947)332 US 380-388 @387 "there are risks involved in making arrangements with the government."

and,American Communications Association -v- Douds (1949)339 US 382-453 @443"....it is not the function of government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

Your point with regard to the entrenched interests in the status quo are good, but incomplete, and thus factually misrepresentative.

The reason such a large % of citizens "support" these intrusive social welfare programs is because they've been forced to pay in to them for decades. It isn't a question of getting something for nothing, but of trying to recoup one's losses.

...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

The fact that many people believe in the fairy tale of "I paid in" doesn't change the fact that they are simply victims of more theft-by-force schemes.

...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

The fact that many people believe in the fairy tale of "I paid in" doesn't change the fact that they are simply victims of more theft-by-force schemes.

...The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

The fact that many people believe in the fairy tale of "I paid in" doesn't change the fact that they are simply victims of more theft-by-force schemes.

CA:an article published in Time magazine (of all places)back in March 20, 1995, cover story:THE CASE FOR KILLING SOCIAL SECURITY. spoke directly to the notion (fairy-tale) that each payer had an account with his/her name on it for future retirement. Was "mendacious nonsense". hahaha that sums it all up quite nicely.